FY 1999 proposal 198740700
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 198740700 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Dworshak Impacts/M&E & Biological-Integrated Rule Curves |
| Proposal ID | 198740700 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | David P. Statler |
| Mailing address | 3404 Hwy. 12 Orofino, ID 83544 |
| Phone / email | 2084767417 / statlerd@clearwater.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Obtains data to monitor and evaluate the impacts of Dworshak Dam operations on the reservoir ecosystem and to formulate biological/integrated rule curves. |
| Target species | bull trout (proposed ESA listing ) westslope cutthroat trout kokanee smallmouth bass |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 1999 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $116,957 | |
| Fringe | $25,712 | |
| Supplies | $2,110 | |
| Operating | $17,388 | |
| Travel | $1,900 | |
| Indirect | $47,908 | |
| Subcontractor | $38,025 | |
| $250,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $250,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $250,000 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Successful scheduling may be influenced by the amount of effort required to calibrate the rule curve modeling effort to compensate for unforeseen influences on reservoir dynamics. Additional data needs for calibration or other purposes may extend the planning phase. Listing of weak native stocks (e.g., bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout) would increase ESA coordination costs, could increase the cost of fish sampling
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Presentation: The goal of this project is to maintain a productive healthy reservoir while serving the flood control, power production and flow augmentation needs. We are following Montana's lead on the rule curves and hope the Dworshak IRCs are implemented upon Council approval. The Tribes objectives are consistent with Idaho's objectives for Dworshak.Questions/Answers:
When will the rule curves be done? Answer: We hope to submit them to the Council in 2000.
Do they include power? Answer: We started with biological curves and will work toward integrated rule curves.
Will you consider the biological opinion? Answer: We do look at it. The steelhead report just came out. We don't expect the Recovery Plan to hit the street before the IRCs are released.
What is the best-use practice at Dworshak? Answer: We have populations of native endangered chinook spawning below Dworshak. We have to consider the needs of the whole system -- resident fish and spawning, rearing, and passage for anadromous fish.
What is the budget ($175,000 to $250,000) increase for? Answer: The increase will cover modeling work and sub-contractors. We are coordinating with Brian Marotz to share data from the templates. The budget increase in 2001 is to finalize the modeling, but we may not need it.
Densities in the drawdown zones look similar to Hungry Horse. Can money be saved there?
Does the model include a thermodynamics unit to look at downstream temperature and temperature modifications? Answer: Yes. An instream flow study of the Clearwater River below Dworshak showed different scenarios. Temperature is an important factor.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: Yes
Programmatic Criteria: Yes
Comment:
Comment:
This proposal is for work to identify dam-operation strategies to mimic a natural downstream hydrograph. The goal, understanding dam consequences on river hydrology and biology, is important to the fish and wildlife program. However, the proposal is often vague and confusing. In particular, methods are vague and there appears to be confusion of reservoir versus river health. The proposal states that rule curves will be based on analysis of plankton, which indicate reservoir conditions, but does not describe monitoring fish. The proposal emphasizes that there is potentially a difficult compromise between benefits for downstream anadromous fish versus above-dam resident fish.